LC69/LC108

mnot: Can someone write down a
new proposal for i50 and also for lc69/108?

i050

<mnot1> Proposal: This
OPTIONAL element (of type wsa:EndpointReferenceType) provides
the value for the [reply endpoint] property. If this element is
NOT present then the value of the [reply endpoint] property is
"http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/role/anonymous".

<Marsh> property is ->
property is an endpoint with an [address] of

marc: Wasnt there a proposal to
fall back to wsa:From first?

<marc> comment above was
me

paco: If i send a oneway message
I dont want to listen to the backchannel

dorchard: Why do you choose a MEP
with result, if you want true oneway?
... There is no way the sender can perclude a fault to be sent
back
... The sender must have some way to check for faults, if it is
interested

umit: What about the case when
you are composing addressing with WSDL or BPEL?

LC103

<mnot1> [[[Issue lc103
concerns the use of 'request' and 'response' in the description
of message addressing properties. In line with the resolution
to issue lc84 and the discussion of lc107, I propose that we
replace the use of 'request' and 'response' with 'message' and
'reply'. This will avoid any confusion with the
request-response MEP(s) defined elsewhere and make it clear
that the text applies equally to composing a reply to a message
received via a 'one-way' MEP
as it does to composing a reply to the first message of a
request-response MEP.]]]

dhull: I think that we should
explicitly say where the text in 3.3 applies